The Kanifing Magistrates’ Court presided over by Magistrate Ngube, has set 20 June 2012 as the date he is expected to deliver judgment in the alleged theft case involving Alasana Krubally and Sarja Fatty, both clerks of the Honest Company.
The date was set after the duo opted not to call witnesses to testify in their defence.
It was alleged that the accused persons being employees of the said company, as sales manager and sales recorder respectively, fraudulently converted D341,000 in to their own use, being proceeds of 114 materials such as desktops, and 91 LCD’s flat screen computers.
Testifying under cross-examination, the second accused person, Sarja Fatty, told the court he had no relationship with the complainant, Alieu Jawara.
He admitted that the first accused started working with the complainant on 16 December 2008.
Asked by the first accused whether there was an inventory done when he (the first accused) was dismissed, the second accused, Sarja Fatty, replied in the affirmative, noting that the police did the inventory with one Lamin Fatty together with one Abubacarr Ndong.
“The police did the inventory in July 2011,” he told the court.
Asked whether he (second accused) was present, he replied in the positive, saying, “I was there with you and one of the CID officers called Sultan at the Kanifing Police Station.”
As to whether there were sales going on in the store before the police did the inventory, the accused person admitted that the store was functioning.
“It was run by the prosecution witness two, PW2, Foday Jawara, but I did not know when he started the sales,” Fatty told the court.
Still under cross-examination, the second accused testified that he did not know how many computers were sold, after the dismissal of the first accused, but he was aware that somebody replaced him after two to three weeks.
Asked by the court when the first defendant was sacked, Sarja Fatty revealed that he was sacked on 16 April 2009, and that the person who replaced him took over on 1st May, before PW2 took over.
He further informed the court that the first accused was sacked by the complainant, due to the fact that he was not making a profit and that he wanted to close down the business.
When further asked by the first accused when the missing computer was discovered, the second accused replied that it was after he (first accused) was sacked.
The case was then adjourned till 20 June 2011, for Judgment.
